In this article, the small-government proponent and Libertarian Ron Paul discusses why he thinks the government shouldn’t meddle in the economy when government fiscal policies created an inflated and unsustainable housing market in the first place.

Paul thinks the free markets should face reality and let the situation sort itself out, otherwise he thinks the situation will only become even more unsustainable and executives will be encouraged to resort back to risky loans for short-term gains as they have done in the past.

Millions of people profited from the risky loans given out when the housing market was booming. In 2005 in Los Angeles, at the peak of the housing boom, I met several people who had profited from the inflated housing market. Life was good back then; regular people became millionaires. Do you think these people will give back their profits in order to save the country? It’s the taxpayers that are going to bear the losses; most of whom are average working Americans who are already in their own dire financial situation as a result of the housing market, over-borrowing, lost industry, etc.

In my opinion, a government bailout is mostly going to save the wealthier Americans in the short term from further losses. So the idea seems to me that the government is using taxpayer’s money to save the wealthy investors on Wall Street.

Just when we thought Bush’s Presidency couldn’t do any more damage, the economy comes crashing down. What a ridiculous situation. They might as well move Wall Street to Las Vegas and put taxpayer’s money down on the Roulette table to determine America’s future.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/17948774650181520591 Crankyputz

A silly choice indeed, and a shame, since we went from one woman who is smart, qualified and a real opponenet, to another who is really just has a mere shadow of what Clinton posessed,